What does “network neutrality” mean?

That answer is difficult because each stakeholder assigns it a different meaning. Cable’s viewpoint is that network neutrality means that consumers should be allowed to access any lawful content, application or services available over the public Internet as well as attach devices that do not cause harm to the network.

Won’t Internet Regulation protect consumers?

There is no evidence that consumers are being prevented from accessing any lawful content on the Internet, nor are broadband providers impeding customers from subscribing to broadband applications that don’t harm the network. The best consumer protection is a vibrant marketplace in which choice for providers exists and allows subscribers to switch if they're not satisfied with the current service. The biggest risk of Internet Regulation is that it will freeze investment and innovation in further broadband deployment and development.

How would Internet Regulation affect investment in broadband?

Crafting Internet Regulation to correct a problem that doesn’t exist is a task fraught with peril. Even assuming appropriate regulations could be written – and because this is an area of rapid technological change, that assumption is unwarranted – they would still lead to uncertainty as to their actual application. They would also lead to the creation of a new bureaucracy to apply such rules and add layers of additional costs for dealing with the regulations and bureaucracy.

Such costs might be undertaken were there real world problems that needed government intervention to remedy. But again, where no one has yet identified such problems, where such regulations would likely increase costs and stifle innovation, and where there is a vigorously competitive marketplace, there is simply no reason to take such an enormous risk.

If this legislation is such a bad idea, who’s behind it?

Some of the loudest proponents of Internet Regulation are large companies, like Google and Yahoo!, that are seeking to lock their market dominance in place. These companies flourished in large part because cable operators, telephone companies, and wireless providers have invested billions in building a broadband infrastructure that supports their business model. Now that they have achieved a leadership position in the marketplace, they want to foreclose any new business model that would enable new entrants to challenge them. The reality is that companies such as these, which may have started as entrepreneurs and innovators, have gotten so large that they cling to the status quo.

So how does cable suggest this issue be addressed?

Cable strongly asserts that government shouldn’t regulate the Internet in the absence of a market failure. There is no evidence of harm or market failure to justify imposing common carrier regulation on cable’s broadband service. Regulation can only slow deployment and investment in broadband and should not be used to favor some Internet competitors over others. The marketplace is highly competitive, where no real-world problems needing a solution have been identified, and where the pace of technological development is breathtaking. There can be no better circumstances than these to leave regulation to the marketplace rather than government.